Pierre-Emile Hojbjerg

Originally Posted by jem

all you have done is restate the problem. 10h is wrong. as anyone who has watched our last three games could tell you.

however, even if we only need a second dm occasionally, amrabat is only £20mm. and mount and mainoo are injured.

Other than the horror show first 10 mins against Forest I thought we played very well. Big ask but reckon we’ll do alright against Arsenal. Hope they start Havertz.

Originally Posted by jem

all you have done is restate the problem. 10h is wrong. as anyone who has watched our last three games could tell you.

however, even if we only need a second dm occasionally, amrabat is only £20mm. and mount and mainoo are injured.

We do should not, and do not, need Casemiro and a DM at home against Wolves and Forest.

I’m just glad the manager agrees.

Originally Posted by NedKelly

Hope they start Havertz.

chelsea must be laughing their #@&%!s off at both of us*.

* arsenal and united, for clarity.

Originally Posted by Ethers

Your head has fallen off mate.

Whoever we sign, Mount is clearly part of our first choice midfield. The reason we’re not spending huge money on a potential DM is that they won’t be needed all the time. We’ve seen in certain games Ten Hag likes to go with Casemiro and someone more defensively minded next to him, but that’s the exception and definitely not the norm.

You say this but we look incredibly unbalanced in the first two games with mount pressing higher up. Hopefully it changes and we get more control of games. If that does happen , then yes mount will start more . But right now it’s looking like we are desperate for another CM to partner Casemiro.

Remove that CM next to Casemiro then the team becomes unbalanced. Maybe it’s just an anomaly of the first two games. The season now will get going as we pick up form and the team doesn’t look so unbalanced.

But if it does consistently look as open as we did in the first two games when mount did start and press a bit further forward leaving Casemiro isolated then the second number 6 will become more important to the team.

If this is the case then out of the midfield and attack , mount will be the one who is benched. (Providing no injuries to Casemiro and Bruno obviously)

Originally Posted by Ethers

We do should not, and do not, need Casemiro and a DM at home against Wolves and Forest.

I’m just glad the manager agrees.

yes, I'm sorry. when I said that anyone who watched our last three games could tell you the set-up was wrong, I didn't mean idiots who just blindly support whatever blinkered nonsense 10h comes out with in pressers and in the transfer market.

obvs, against forest, we had less use for a dm on account of being 2-0 down in the first five minutes, but it's maybe not the best strategy. all three underwhelming teams ripped through our midfield repeatedly - we deserved to lose against wolves and the result should not fool anyone (except idiots). also, amrabat isn't just a dm; he's better going forward than mount, too. so is palhinha. playing someone in midfield who can actually £#%&!ing tackle doesn't mean sacrificing anything in attack. if a young bryan robson were available.....

Originally Posted by Dasilvatwins

Eriksen as a 6? I would say he is a luxury. Everybody knows we need a CM.

If that CM does sign, well best XI who gets dropped? It would be mount no?

He likes to play his best players all the time. You saw that in Bruno, Casemiro last season. If his best players are not injured he would play them.

So if we do sign a CM it looks like mount will be the one not making the starting XI when everybody is fit.

Based on our performances so far if we do sign a CM he will have to start as many games next to Casemiro. Bruno is captain and so he will never rotate him. Where does mount fit?

Again, I hope mount is actually a player who can help us control the midfield a bit and maybe create. I hope he comes good but if we do desperately need a CM why did we spend so much of our limited budget on him first. Silly from the club and those involved

You can debate it all you want. The manager has brought in Mount to replace Eriksen. Your feelings on the matter don't mean a great deal pal.

Originally Posted by Dasilvatwins

You say this but we look incredibly unbalanced in the first two games with mount pressing higher up. Hopefully it changes and we get more control of games. If that does happen , then yes mount will start more . But right now it’s looking like we are desperate for another CM to partner Casemiro.

Remove that CM next to Casemiro then the team becomes unbalanced. Maybe it’s just an anomaly of the first two games. The season now will get going as we pick up form and the team doesn’t look so unbalanced.

But if it does consistently look as open as we did in the first two games when mount did start and press a bit further forward leaving Casemiro isolated then the second number 6 will become more important to the team.

If this is the case then out of the midfield and attack , mount will be the one who is benched. (Providing no injuries to Casemiro and Bruno obviously)

Not sure why you’re trying to blame it all on Mount, it was just as much down to Casemiro being out of position. He was all over the place at times.

Just teething problems though, and I expect us to improve as the season goes on and players get used to the system, and used to each other. We did look more organised with Eriksen in there at the weekend - is that because Eriksen is better than Mount, or is it down to the fact that Eriksen has already had a year learning what the boss wants, where he should be at certain times, and developing an understanding with his midfield partner. Those things don’t happen overnight.

For the better teams, especially away from home, we absolutely need an Amrabat or Hojberg (in an ideal world, it'd be someone a lot better but then a lot pricier) in the team. We look so weak in midfield and are an absolute soft touch. Change of personel and tactics needed, 100%.

Originally Posted by Ethers

Not sure why you’re trying to blame it all on Mount, it was just as much down to Casemiro being out of position. He was all over the place at times.

Just teething problems though, and I expect us to improve as the season goes on and players get used to the system, and used to each other. We did look more organised with Eriksen in there at the weekend - is that because Eriksen is better than Mount, or is it down to the fact that Eriksen has already had a year learning what the boss wants, where he should be at certain times, and developing an understanding with his midfield partner. Those things don’t happen overnight.

I’m not blaming it on mount. I’m saying out of Casemiro mount Bruno . One of those has to be benched if we are to bring in a new CM.

Out of those three mount is the most likely one to be benched. Hopefully with a few months training , the team starts to have a better understanding and play with more conviction . Point I was making was mount would have been good to sign after a CM .

We need a new CM who can help control the game , not be out muscled or out fought so easily . Everybody knows this .

If that player does come in, somebody has to be benched, it won’t be Casemiro or Bruno .

Originally Posted by Coracao

You can debate it all you want. The manager has brought in Mount to replace Eriksen. Your feelings on the matter don't mean a great deal pal.

My original point was we need a CM . Mount would have been a good signing to help complete the team.

We have screwed ourselves by spending a part of a budget on a player that we don’t immediately really need. Now we are trying to find the right CM that can Improve the midfield that will cost next to nothing. That’s the clubs fault for going after mount first .

Even if mount comes in to replace Eriksen, we still need a CM. I’m not having a go at mount. Just seems like mount would be the first one out if we do need to switch up the team and play a new CM

Originally Posted by Dasilvatwins

I’m not blaming it on mount. I’m saying out of Casemiro mount Bruno . One of those has to be benched if we are to bring in a new CM.

Out of those three mount is the most likely one to be benched. Hopefully with a few months training , the team starts to have a better understanding and play with more conviction . Point I was making was mount would have been good to sign after a CM .

We need a new CM who can help control the game , not be out muscled or out fought so easily . Everybody knows this .

If that player does come in, somebody has to be benched, it won’t be Casemiro or Bruno .



My original point was we need a CM . Mount would have been a good signing to help complete the team.

We have screwed ourselves by spending a part of a budget on a player that we don’t immediately really need. Now we are trying to find the right CM that can Improve the midfield that will cost next to nothing. That’s the clubs fault for going after mount first .

Even if mount comes in to replace Eriksen, we still need a CM. I’m not having a go at mount. Just seems like mount would be the first one out if we do need to switch up the team and play a new CM

There’s only so many times I can repeat myself. Ten Hag already has his first choice midfielders. We’re not signing another central midfielder with a view to them playing every game. We’re on the lookout for a cheap backup/specialist.

Originally Posted by Ethers

There’s only so many times I can repeat myself.

Tomorrow's shit@#%&! today.

As with Mount, the first question that springs to mind with this guy is "how are we going to get rid of him?"

His club are happy to sell him in his peak years. He is already slow, cumbersome and already just above average. He is only going one way and that is down, if not now, then soon.

Surely, we can do better than this. Are we not supposed to be building a squad here? What's the average age of him, Casemiro and Erikson? It's £#%&!ing madness, and to spend real money on him too

Still hoping it's %@#$&!s.

Originally Posted by Ethers

There’s only so many times I can repeat myself. Ten Hag already has his first choice midfielders. We’re not signing another central midfielder with a view to them playing every game. We’re on the lookout for a cheap backup/specialist.

Then you better pray the balance of the team fixes it self because if anything the first 2 games has to go by we are in for a long season.

Was a bit better against Forest, both goals we conceded were silly set piece mistakes, but then you could argue mount wasn’t playing and having a player like Eriksen who can pass forward well helped.

Listen, if mount comes back, hits the ground running I will be happy. I’m not writing him off. However it’s obvious we need a CM and hojbjerg just isn’t the one.

So we either sign a a cheap CM or we don’t. Whatever happens , if this is the managers best team he can put out then we are on for a long season. The challenge would be for top 4 then. Maybe we go far in Europe , but if we don’t sign a decent CM it would be a struggle.

Hojbjerg shouldn’t be signed. I don’t want spurs rejects.

Originally Posted by goldfinger II

Tomorrow's shit@#%&! today.

As with Mount, the first question that springs to mind with this guy is "how are we going to get rid of him?"

His club are happy to sell him in his peak years. He is already slow, cumbersome and already just above average. He is only going one way and that is down, if not now, then soon.

Surely, we can do better than this. Are we not supposed to be building a squad here? What's the average age of him, Casemiro and Erikson? It's £#%&!ing madness, and to spend real money on him too

Still hoping it's %@#$&!s.

Nope, apparently we can’t have expectation that a club our size has scouts in leagues where we can pick up a player for 15-20 million to improve our midfield . Just cannot happen. Be happy with hojbjerg .

If there’s no money to sign that 15-20 million without going into the ins and outs of what they should have prioritised again I rather they don’t sign hojbjerg . End up having another shit@#%&! on our books after a season

As much as I have my doubts about Mount, 2 games is too soon to write the guy off completely. Don’t get me wrong I’ll be posting snide about him every single time he doesn’t live up to expectations/hopes, but you still have to try and be reasonable. It doesn’t help that the rest of the team looked shite for the first couple of games either.

The main reason I felt - and still feel - we need a DM is because Casemiro is literally our only one. I don’t really want us setting up with two DMs unless absolutely necessary, but I don’t like the thought of him getting injured and who we’ll have to play in his place. I’m also wary of how leggy he has looked recently - not just the start of this season, but at the end of the last too. Genuinely think striker and DM were the two priority signings when the transfer window opened. Obviously De Gea leaving meant we also needed a keeper.

I’ll never forgive them for not signing Rice. Never.

Originally Posted by NedKelly

As much as I have my doubts about Mount, 2 games is too soon to write the guy off completely. Don’t get me wrong I’ll be posting snide about him every single time he doesn’t live up to expectations/hopes, but you still have to try and be reasonable.

It is a process, the idea that every step would be upward and we would only see success is a fallacy. 10H has done enough in his first season for us to see what he is about and the kind of football he is working towards. Of course there will be stumbles etc... but I think he has more than earnt his chance. the only time we can really judge him is at the end of the season when we have seen how it all shakes out. I have no issues with those wanting to vent and complain but let's not pretend anyone on here knows more than him about coaching the game.

Sky reporting initial contact made...

ON.

Originally Posted by NedKelly

2 games is too soon to write the guy off completely.

it's almost as he appeared out of thin air.

Originally Posted by NedKelly

I’ll never forgive them for not signing Rice. Never.

wasn't motm in his last game. we could have had the guy who was for £20mm.

about as underwhelming a signing as you can make, and i dont like how his surname is spelt. also dane's are the @#%&!s of scandinavia (with the exception of razzers who seems alright).

Originally Posted by larry

about as underwhelming a signing as you can make, and i dont like how his surname is spelt. also dane's are the @#%&!s of scandinavia (with the exception of razzers who seems alright).

Hardly the Middle East though is it. Possibly the most friendly region in the world, with the fittest women.

Agree on his name though. Even the first name is wrong.